Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: FUBAR-BDHR on June 19, 2009, 12:26:29 am
-
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/18/minnesota.music.download.fine/index.html
Now that is just ridiculous. The original verdict was for something like 22 grand but was thrown out. My question is where the hell do they find jurors that think that is reasonable?
-
Well damn, I guess that means I owe someone about a billion dollars. I am humbled.
-
This is merely another case of legally crucifying one individual in the vague hope that it scares enough people off of peer-to-peer networks to make some measurable difference.
Of course, "measurable difference" means little when the RIAA cannot offer anything substantial in the reasoning of how downloading affects them in the least, aside from "because we said so".
-
Seriously, i use to think that a "Pirate bay party" was a modern joke. I don't think that any more. :confused:
-
....
Does this mean I can get the death penalty for speeding?
-
Now that is just ridiculous. The original verdict was for something like 22 grand but was thrown out. My question is where the hell do they find jurors that think that is reasonable?
I'd like to know where they find jurors who side with the music industry to begin with. Payola, perhaps.
-
....
Does this mean I can get the death penalty for speeding?
If you crash into something at an appropriate speed, hell yeah.
And as for the topic:
I think the Pirate Party will steal votes from the Democrats in the nearest election.
I also think that she should get the same penalty as she'd get for stealing a CD with 24 songs worth $24, which gives:
http://www.crimeandpunishment.net/MN/
Theft or Receiving Stolen Property
($250 or less)
Up to $700 Fine &/or Up to 90 Days in Jail
Therefore the whole punishment is unlawfull.
-
That's the most sensible anti-piracy sentiment I've seen, although I'm pro-sharing. WHatever happened to burning a CD or copying or loaning a tape? People are too greedy, artists get less than 1.00 a CD in most cases, while that's a lot it's nothing compared to what execs are obviously making. Why does anyone NEED that money? What can you do with so much that is actually semi-sensibe/necessary?
-
I like this:
I also think that she should get the same penalty as she'd get for stealing a CD with 24 songs worth $24, which gives:
http://www.crimeandpunishment.net/MN/
Theft or Receiving Stolen Property
($250 or less)
Up to $700 Fine &/or Up to 90 Days in Jail
Therefore the whole punishment is unlawfull.
-
1.9 million. :wtf:
-
I think we need to look at the definition of cruel and unusual punishment.
'[A punishment] so disproportionate to the crime for which it is inflicted that it shocks the conscience and offends fundamental notions of human dignity.'
24 songs, 1.9 million. Disproporionate? Hell yes. Shocking? Yes (to me, at least).
-
I haven't really looked too hard at the case, but was she convicted of simply possessing the songs or also with distributing them?
Not that I think they kept track of every person who got a song overall from her, but it might help show where this total kinda came from.
-
It says guilty of downloading. I didn't see anything about sharing.
-
I haven't really looked too hard at the case, but was she convicted of simply possessing the songs or also with distributing them?
Not that I think they kept track of every person who got a song overall from her, but it might help show where this total kinda came from.
Even then she could say that she didn't know she was sharing, and that it wasn't willful sharing. Mos tof the people I know seem to think that songs pop out of nowhere rathe rthan the PCs of others.
Wouldn't they have to chbarge every other person related millions of dollars, those who downloaded from her as well as for the other songs they had, the ones that seeded to her as well as their songs, as well as the songs they shared, as well as the ones who had those... Let's charge10%+ of the American populace.
-
That's the most sensible anti-piracy sentiment I've seen, although I'm pro-sharing. WHatever happened to burning a CD or copying or loaning a tape? People are too greedy, artists get less than 1.00 a CD in most cases, while that's a lot it's nothing compared to what execs are obviously making. Why does anyone NEED that money? What can you do with so much that is actually semi-sensibe/necessary?
It's not that I'm really anti-sharing, it's the fact that a court in the USA appears to be breaking the law in broad daylight that p!$$es me off.
And worries me...
BTW- I'd also probably let her go (alright, only if she'd pay the $24; the law states Up to $700 Fine, so $24 is below this upper limit :p). There are people with friggin 100's of GB's of illegal stuff on their HDD's, worth far more than 24 bucks, and these could get spanked harder.
It says guilty of downloading. I didn't see anything about sharing.
Funny thing is that DLing files is not even punishable under Polish law (even if they are DL'd from an illegal source)...
Sharing is punishable though, as a form of illegal distribution.
-
How again did they justify fining the person $80,000 per song?
On an less related note, that fine money could buy 24 Javelin AT missiles.
-
I've seen less "crimes" go for more money.
-
well thats what you get for listening to pop music. if you can even call it music, cash cow would be a better desdcription.
-
Listen, the reason they managed to do $80,000 per song is twofold:
1. The lady was an idiot; she was basically saying "lol I didnt dl anything" rather than "oh ****, sorry guys, I'll pay you my vacation money after I battle to get the fine down to size." The jury got massively pissed off after a long time of this and ****ed her over.
2. RIAA considers pirating music COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. It's not stealing something physical/digital from the artist/record label. If it were that, her fine could only possibly be $18,000 at the very conceivable maximum. RIAA believes that when you pirate a song or whatever, you are robbing the record label of their digital rights, ideas, property, and copyrights. Copyright infringement is, using the dictionary definition, like you, without authorization, producing copies of Windows 7 and selling it of your own volition. RIAA observes how pirates will upload/distribute a digital (non-physical) item (since the item is not technically property , they can get away with saying it's copyright infringement because pirates DO in fact acquire a full copy of the music without payment or agreement) and then distribute it under conditions that are contrary to the record label's copyright. Notice how when you download ****, there's this damn agreement you have to click "I AGREE" on? That's mostly just copyright information. Basically, RIAA goes through these loopholes to absolutely DESTROY you for it - a maximum fine of $150,000 per infringed item, as according to United States Copyright Law.
-
Which in the end, doesn't help anyway.
-
It honestly makes sense. I mean, what if people could just go into a bakery and take as much bread as they want?
-
It honestly makes sense. I mean, what if people could just go into a bakery and take as much bread as they want?
An illogical argument. If the lady were to steal a CD rather than download music, there would be, definably, one less CD to sell. The problem is that with downloading, nothing is really being taken because the original copy is still out there somewhere.
And that's mostly what makes copyright law and the internet mutual enemies.
-
On the internet, you can make infinite copies and distribute them, effectively doing harm to the original publisher.
Thus, their only legal defense is to crucify you with corporation-scale fines.
-
It honestly makes sense. I mean, what if people could just go into a bakery and take as much bread as they want?
This reminds me about an example of not being able to have anything for free in my Economics class - the problem was that this king made bread free so that no one would starve, but bread supplies ran low because people basically used the bread extremely wastefully.
But that's not the point of this topic. :p
On-topic (sort of): The Pirate Party says that corporations can't monitor downloads to check for piracy because it is a breach of privacy.
-
Yes, but the pirate party is European.
-
It honestly makes sense. I mean, what if people could just go into a bakery and take as much bread as they want?
Sure, because 24 pieces of bread (Possibly adding up to a single loaf) constitutes a 1.9 million dollar fine. :doubt:
-
A closer analogy would be getting bits of bread from a bunch of people and then passing bits of bread onto other people, which only serves to show how broken it is.
-
1.9 Million is fraking stupid! Who can pay it anyhow?
The music industry make me so mad!
I dont illegally download music. But this ****e makes me want to download everything.
Music industry always claiming the internet is to blame, or someone is always to blame, lower your prices, maybe people will buy more!
In my country the ISP's have agreed to share information with the Music industry and will block websites that the music industry claim will allow illegal downloads of music.
1984 how are ya!
-
If they're so paranoid about people downloading stuff, why don't they just type in "free mp3 download" in Google and report the sites? The sites claim they "aren't associated" and only have links. Well, follow the links and get the files deleted. I notice that some songs by popular artists are not present in many "illegal" mp3 sites, so that indicates that they check the internet for illegal copies. Obviously some people are just seeking extra revenue.
They should employ teams to kill off illegal copies if they really want to stop "free" downloads.
-
(http://imagechan.com/images/54bac71a772563ede90f8545afb6d19c.jpg)
-
Comforting to know that the world is an utterly insane place, innit?
-
thats ok, im insane
-
(http://imagechan.com/images/54bac71a772563ede90f8545afb6d19c.jpg)
This really sums it up
Just think, there are people out their who committed "blue collar crime" AKA the fraking bankers, who have ****ed the world up with scams, schemes, profit margins and greed,
have they faced jail?
Yet the ordinary person, can still go down for downloading music? Why not those people who have ruined our economies, who still live in their large houses, with their nice cars.
-
Because the media is in control and they made us all too damn lazy to take up arms and storm Washington like the founding fathers intended us to if things ever got this bad.
-
Just think, there are people out their who committed "blue collar crime" AKA the fraking bankers, who have ****ed the world up with scams, schemes, profit margins and greed,
have they faced jail?
Yet the ordinary person, can still go down for downloading music? Why not those people who have ruined our economies, who still live in their large houses, with their nice cars.
Is this person going to jail? I thought she was just fined.
I don't really get the exact point here? Are you mad she's not going to jail instead of being fined?
-
Well I'm guessing if she doesn't fork up most of her assets for the rest of her life she will be held in contempt of court and face jail. So that would be a yes it is possible she is facing jail since it's doubtful she can pay.
-
Because the media is in control and they made us all too damn lazy to take up arms and storm Washington like the founding fathers intended us to if things ever got this bad.
THIS! OH DEAR GOD THIS!